ArticleScientific reports2024
Using olfactory cues in text materials benefits delayed retention and schemata construction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Olfactory cues are considered a new sensory medium that can enhance learning, but the lack of empirical data has hampered their widespread use in educational practice. This requires empirical research to explore the effects of olfactory cues on learning. To address this research need, an experimental research study was conducted among 87 fourth graders from a Chinese elementary school. It explored the innovative design of adding olfactory cues to text materials by examining their effects on retention and schemata construction as learning outcomes, as well as their influence on learners' cognitive load and learning experience. In this between-subjects design experiment, the experimental group (n = 44) learned text materials with the introduction of olfactory cues, while the control group (n = 43) only learned text materials. After the learning activity, participants were asked to complete the questionnaires, immediate test, and delayed test. The results revealed that the usage of olfactory cues synchronized with text materials can enhance delayed retention, facilitate schemata construction, and improve learner experience without increasing cognitive load. This study confirms the potential of well-designed olfactory cues in educational practice and provides insights for designing and presenting multimedia learning resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.